Federal Court confirms (again): Police can be photographed in public

Following in the footsteps of the US's First, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth and Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeals, judges for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals have unanimously ruled that individuals have a First Amendment right to photograph and video record police officers in public. The decision follows multiple cases involving law enforcement retaliation against individuals who were recording police activity in public.

The ruling, which was filed on July 7, 2017, details two cases in which Philadelphia police officers interfered with individuals who were recording public law enforcement activity.

The first case involved Amanda Geraci, who was filming the arrest of an anti-fracking protester when an officer 'pinned' her against a pillar, blocking her ability to record the arrest. The second case involved Richard Fields, who was arrested after refusing to stop recording public police activity.

On behalf of the court, and per the document filed last week, Judge Thomas Ambro wrote, "Simply put, the First Amendment protects the act of photographing, filming, or otherwise recording police officers conducting their official duties in public."

There may be exceptions to this right, the judge notes, such as times when a "recording interferes with police activity." However, in the absence of that concern, the Court finds that "under the First Amendment's right of access to information, the public has the commensurate right to record—photograph, film, or audio record—police officers conducting official police activity in public areas."

I wonder at the mentality of people who make statements like yours. Did you get a speeding ticket and think it's unfair? Did someone say 'no' to you after an indulgent childhood of being told you are 'so special'?

Cops, in my experience, choose a profession in which they can help society. I've met some oafs but they have been a tiny proportion of that data set. Cops hunt down pedophiles, thieves, thugs, rapists, drug dealers and others who have done harm or intend to harm innocent people; yet you refer to them as "bone headed Pigs". Which subset of the villains do you seek to protect or defend?

Or are you one of those Sovereign Citizen types who think society's laws don't apply to themselves

Good. Anyone given the level of power that police officers have needs to be held accountable and in too many jurisdictions they aren't and citizens are abused as a result. I'm all for increasing training, pay, and accountability for police officers. In my experience most officers are responsible public servants but I know a lot of people who were mediocre bullies who spent a lot of time in trouble who ended up becoming cops or deputies because a field that gives someone so much power over other people with what is often limited accountability is incredibly attractive to people with that type of personality. The more ways we have to weed out the bad apples the better.

Most of the time you see video that is used against police. Why not help law enforcement with pictures that aid them in crime fighting. Witnesses will not come forward but do the opposite to help criminals. This makes zero sense. Why do many people complain against surveillance cameras around the cities? Citizen's can also be recorded on videos just as police.

If police commit a crime as they do from time to time then they should be brought to justice. You cannot "use against the police" if the police does not commit a crime. So in that respect when a video is used against police successfully it means that police committed an offence for which it needs to be prosecuted and thus this helps overall law enforcement.

If police does not commit a crime then they will be acquitted by video evidence - nothing to be afraid of then. They are only afraid when they know they are in the wrong.

I take your point but its not always true. We have seen riots erupt over edited video of police, we have seen police falsely accused because the video did not include all the information or did not see an angle the police could.

Aren't there ever citizens falsely accused or convicted based on faulty police testimony? Police generally don't testify against peers. If citizen camera evidence is flawed, it is generally due to incomplete or low quality capture, rather than due to deletion. Meanwhile, police might be rather selective about when they turn on their own cameras.

mmargoliesThere will never be the case that one side is always right. Video/photo evidence is still there to back up testimony in court of law. Court of law can kick off any necessary validations that evidence has not been falsified. If evidence is falsified the ones found guilty are due for prosecution - this is quite serious. I do not think you can do it any better way.

As when it comes to riots and emotions... Political exploitation of emotions is not something you can handle by tackling video/photo shooting and does not change the usefulness of photo/video. That is a completely separate domain. There is or there is no photo/video political exploitation of emotions will always find a way.

Overall a ridiculous suggestion. Everyone has his/her own job to do. For some it is photo/video recording at such events. Would police put down handcuffs and come and help to photo and video for them? Utmostly ridiculous suggestion but is absolutely equal to yours.

It depends on the situation. If there's a grieving family member, it might be helpful for a good samaritan to comfort that person, so the officer can attempt to apprehend a criminal. Maybe you could help direct pedestrian traffic around the scene.

brn, it is still one end of the same argument that works both ways: or may be you and police can stop doing what you are doing and help the photographer. Both suggestions are equally ridiculous. Everybody should do their own job and not someone else's.

You can easily get things worse by intruding into someone else's job and/or make their job more difficult. If the situation is dangerous the real police would always prefer members of the public not to intrude and would make effort to fence off the scene if they have enough resources. Either way staying put and clear of intrusion is the way to go. You can be a witness later if you wish and have reasons to help. Photo/video then would be very helpful along your testimony.

happypoppeyeStop being utmostly ridiculous with jumping to idiotic conclusions. Out of all the cases of photo-video shooting the police how often did you come across when someone was shooting your loved ones?

I filmed police uncountable number of times in my life and never yet came across such a situation. You are just being ridiculous making highly unlikely scenario the centerpiece of your argument.

Even if it comes to your loved ones intruding directly may not be the right choice unless you have special forces skills mixed with criminal psychology knowledge. You may be putting them into greater danger unless you are a profi in handling such cases. Do you love your loved ones? Let the professionals do the job or you may have yourself to blame for the rest of your life for provoking events to their death or serious injury. If you are a special forces profi then the story may be different. But we are talking about photo and video professionals here - at DPReview. Do not be confused.

@miksto – I agree that the average person photographing a police event rarely results in any redeeming social value and, other than pro news reporting, it’s somewhat self-indulgent. On the other hand, a citizen putting away the cell phone to offer assistance to the police is to be applauded. Yes, there are situations where only law enforcement is qualified to act, but there are times where a citizen may be of assistance. I have seen occasions when officers appreciate someone to direct traffic until backup arrives. Recently, here in AZ, a civilian saw an officer down and bloody with an assailant beating his head into the pavement. What should that civilian have done, it wasn't his job. And, what do you think the cop’s wife and kids would have preferred? It’s called civic duty, as citizens of this country we have responsibilities to each other; one is to help maintain law and order. Sadly, it seems this is an “utmostly” forgotten concept.

>> a citizen putting away the cell phone to offer assistance to the police is to be applauded

It is definitely not to be applauded but is to be thrown upon! Most of the time it will only distract the police who being busy with serious situation will now have one more moving part in a changing situation - the good samaritan who gets in a way and who police cannot assume is actually a good samaritan. This only complicates things and diverts some police resources and faculties. It is in fact always better for police to have fewer moving parts on any crime scene.Want to help police? do not intrude into crime scene and either stay where you are or remove yourself from the crime scene and from danger.

@MPS Photographic - That was an idiotic comment. The civilian in my prior post when he saw the criminal trying to kill the Arizona DPS officer forgot the camera and used his Glock. Would you have just stood there and taken video, ran home, or called 911 and hope someone responds in time?

@miksto - You seem to have a somewhat narrow view of what the police do. It's not always crime. And, most people can tell the difference and not interfere when they may be a hindrance. A number of my family members are police officers and have, at times, appreciated civilian assistance when it was offered.

WGVanDyckAs if this changes the basic fact. Does not matter what they do. Everyone has to do their job and not someone else's. Photo/video - for photographers/videographers. Police work - for policemen.

As for me talking about crime scenes specifically I suggest you first read what exactly I was responding to, to whom and you will see that I was not of narrow view but was responding to specific silly points above like "So a few of you idiots would rather video the cops shooting one of your loved ones rather than help them" or then your stories about policeman being beaten up, etc. Hardly surprising you then expected I should respond differently.

It is worth to read things that are response to something else in their context rather than take out of context and presume you have something to hold me by. It does not work that way unless you want to fall into demagoguery.

@miksto - In my first post I qualified my response by saying, “Yes, there are situations where only law enforcement is qualified to act.” And, frankly, I found the “So a few of you idiots” comment to be rather disconjugated. But the philosophy of you are what you are and can never step in to assist in another roll is … well, unusual. In an emergency airliner evacuation there is a passenger designation known as an “Able Bodied Man.” This is a passenger that the cabin crew will ask to assist in the evacuation process. Usually, it’s something like assisting an unaccompanied child, an elderly person, or directing passengers on the ground to safety. If you are ever in an emergency evacuation and asked to perform such duties, are you really going to inform the flight attendant that you are a photographer and that’s his/her job? I suspect you’ll grab that kid whether you’re asked to or not.

Miksto, thanks for an interesting conversation. Yours is the last word..

WGVanDyckDo not put words in my mouth: where exactly did I say "never"? There is a huge difference between "never" and "everyone should do their job and not someone else's".Further to that even for situation of danger I already indicated one possible exception when involvement may sometimes be conditionally helpful - "If you are a special forces profi then the story may be different".Please do not invent what did not happen. Do not assign to me what I did not say and what can easily be shown to contradict what I said.

I see little value in focusing discussion on rare exceptions rather than looking at more common case and indicated this as well above - "making highly unlikely scenario the centerpiece of your argument". And none of what you are saying in any way changes common case that everyone should do their job.

>> If you are ever in an emergency evacuation and asked to perform such duties, are you really going to inform the flight attendant that you are a photographer and that’s his/her job?

This again is an example of making a highly unlikely scenario into centerpiece of argument and thus blowing it out of proportions. And I see little value in hiding common case behind unlikely scenarios by blowing the unlikely out of proportion. I never was in a situation when I needed to help police despite filming them myriad of times. I never was in "flight attendant" scenario of yours and that scenario is again highly unlikely. I filmed numerous fires and only once was in a situation when I was directing children out of a school that was already full of smoke. Exceptional cases in my experience are not even one in a thousand. So why are you so insistent on narrow focus on unlikely scenarios that even go to such length as put words in my mouth I did not say and that contradict what I said?

This is good news. As most bad behavior is not the police (duhh). This helps the police.

If only we had video of the Michael Brown, CNN wouldn't have covered and pushed "hands up don't shoot" as it was proven that was a lie, his hands were not up, according to several witnesses in the area. Fake news.

Interesting and pretty useless discussion in my eyes. I really do not understand why this is such a big deal in the US. I mean after all it's the land of the free--so people should be free to take pictures of everything they want unless privacy issues are restricting them to do so. OMHO

Part of the counter argument is that police being overly concerned about doing things 100% by the book due to being filmed, could inhibit them from doing their job properly, which could cost lives or get innocents hurt. It makes some sense to me, but in the end, certainly doesn't warrant making it illegal to film or photograph them.

Officers face many threats. I don't think you will see them with their family walking on the streets even on their days off. I know 2 friends whose fathers are police. One friend still recalled gangsters painted their doors will red paint when he was still young. They almost never hanged out with family in public places.

Now you let people photograph for like they are celebrities, I worry about their life being affected even more.

Their jobs are highly dangerous. Remember in old days it was soldiers keeping cities safe. That's why being filmed sometimes changed their behavior.

It has not been the land of the free for many years. We don't even rank in the top 20 of freest nations anymore. Its an issue because police have abused photographers, not only at crime scenes but just taking photos of public buildings, or photographing life in general where police happen to be in the picture. Police have sometimes been too aggressive. Just because its the law a the article mentions police continue to harass people with cameras in public places. Its happened to me more than once and I'm a very police and cooperative person.

My pet peeve is with security agents, hired help, invested with obscure powers that guard our federal buildings and subway stations.Are ALL federal buildings, including postal offices, off limits to family or casual photography? Because the local passport office in Montreal occupies a complete building FROM THE SECOND FLOOR UP, but there's a little boutiques promenade on the main floor, and I've seen new proud citizens being scared away by this goon in uniform when they try to take a family shot showing their fresh issued passports.Well, airports are also federal buildings, uh? And people take pictures there also.New subway stations were inaugurated here some years ago, and for once the transit authority showed some taste with interior decoration. Same story, when tourists and locals were trying to proudly pose in the PUBLIC area.I no longer travel to far, nice locations with my camera. I rent the video.

What makes the police nervous in the US is the amount of guns that everybody has.Guns killed over 13,000 people in 2015. (US)There are 300 million guns in the US.As for the UK...there was 8 deaths from hand guns in one year.No wonder the US police are nervous.

FBI training is when you need to fire a gun, you need to pull the trigger twice to ensure the threat is eliminated because if you don't the next round will be someone pulling the trigger against you. If I am a police officer, I will never know when someone will pull a trigger on me, that is the nature of allowing people to have guns with little restrictions, this is the USA, people have to live with it.

No, rationally, knowing that are guns around does not make the police more nervous about being filmed. If you were nervous about being shot then you'd be too busy looking for guns to care about cameras...

@tabloid - What makes police nervous is people who are ready to do harm to them. But that's not what causes them to be jerks and power drunk a-holes who shoot people at routine traffic stops. their inability to diffuse a situation is the problem. Many now come from the military where the solution is shoot to kill at the slightest threat. But in non-war police work, that's the wrong approach.

@tabloid: Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Do spoons make people fat?The vast majority of firearm deaths in the U.S. are suicide. The UK has similar suicide rates just differ in the means to the end.

Although I have been a gun owner throughout my life, the argument that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is the most ridiculous, most ignorant, and most stupid argument one would ever hear about this subject. This is what the NRA washes the brains of some people with.

Without guns, those 13,286 people would have been alive. Maybe some broken nose, or a few scratches over their bodies.

Gun laws need to be overhauled so they are not freely given to criminals.

@sh10453 - that's completely stupid and you shouldn't be allowed to post on public sites. without the guns, most of those people would be dead by knife, bat, lead pipe, arson or hit-and-run. and yes, guns in the hands of criminals is a big problem, but how many people with prior records contributed to that 13k of gun deaths, and how many of the deaths were gang on gang or criminal enterprise oriented where innocent civilians were not harmed?

@sh10453: "Without guns, those 13,286 people would have been alive. Maybe some broken nose, or a few scratches over their bodies."

Riiiight, instead of "scratching" someone they pulled out a gun and killed them. People have been killing other people for centuries before guns were invented. We have no way of knowing if those 13k people would still be alive. If someone wanted them dead they would have found any number of ways to do it. You could say guns "make it easier" but so do bats, knives, poison and anything with an engine.

"Gun laws need to be overhauled so they are not freely given to criminals."

18 U.S.C. § 921 et seq. prohibit anyone convicted of a felony and anyone subject to a domestic violence protective order from possessing a firearm. This has been in effect for 50 years. But laws won't stop people from killing people.

@stevo23: shhhhhh don't give the bureaucrats any ideas. If they realize the potential revenue by issuing ladder permits it will become sanctioned overnight. NY, IL and CA will be the first to implement, watch.

@medisn - but I was hoping to cash in on it by starting a third party support company. but you just gave me another idea - your last word was watch. did you know that 995 in 1000 people die with a watch on their wrist? do you see where I'm going with this?

USA TODAY Published 5:55 p.m. ET June 16, 2016The gun homicide rate in England and Whales is about one for every 1 million people, according to the Geneva Declaration of Armed Violence and Development, a multinational organization based in Switzerland.In a population of 56 million, that adds up to about 50 to 60 gun killings annually. In the USA, by contrast, there are about 160 times as many gun homicides in a country that is roughly six times larger in population. There were 8,124 gun homicides in 2014, according to the latest FBI figures.

Or we could use ACTUAL data from the ONS instead of a left-wing, agenda driven organization in Switzerland. The ACTUAL number of homicides in the UK in 2015 was 0.9 per 100,000 vs 5 per 100,000 in the U.S. The U.S. is simply a far more diverse place, larger population, greater income disparity, the UK couldn't begin to grasp the complexities of a country this large and diverse.

Firearm related injuries are between 65-70k each year for the last 5 years. To put that in perspective that doesn't even crack the top 20 for injuries requiring medical attention in the U.S. You're 3X more likely to get hit by a car as a pedestrian than shot with a firearm.

"...when an officer 'pinned' her against a pillar, blocking her ability to record the arrest. "

I see a gray zone here. You have the right to record the police but they do not have the obligation to facilitate it. They can move you somewhere "for you safety", effectively making it impossible for you to get the shot or the video; or they can block your view by pretending that they are not really doing that, etc.

You may be right in theory. In practice however, the Police don't have the "extra" manpower or the setup of anti-recording teams to move, shift, interfere with the public who could potentially film "normal" police officers conducting their duties. It would probably the first responding police officers that got filmed and they in general, would be too busy devoting all their attention to situation at hand and would not have the time or capacity to deal with bystanders.

Nice try, bud. Nah, this is directly disallowing them the right to record. Obviously they could disguise it as something else (trying to move them to a "safer" area etc) and tell whatever story they wanted.

Most people don't like being photographed while doing their jobs. The police are no different, but they've come to accept it. At first, they were resistant to dash cams and body cams (imagine a camera in your cubicle). As time goes by, they learn the cameras get them out of trouble more often then it gets them into trouble. It allows them to accurately recount events, which helps them in court. It allows them to easily clear their name when someone makes a bogus accusation.

Most cops like cameras.

They're getting used to others filming them as well. Just do so in a manner that doesn't interfere.

The way i see it, its for the protection of the public to be able to record police officers. They only seem to have a problem with it when they are doing something that could incriminate them.

Unfortunate to say, but if I were a black man living in America, I'd be tempted to have a dash cam or action cam strapped to my chest everywhere I went. If I were an Arab I'd have another one strapped to my back.

I was in New York on vacation, and I filmed NINE officers arresting a black man in full suit attire walking to work because they 'thought' his subway ticket was a roll of marajuana!! The poor guy looked confused and insulted as they pinned the back of his neck to a wall. They let him go after much excessive force and brutality, and offensive language.

Political activists could learn a lot from SOCOM. One especially useful tactic is a chain of coverage. This requires multiple film crews. The primary crew records the police action. The secondary crew records police interfering with the primary crew. A tertiary crew, or crews, may be used in the case of large events, such as protests.

From what I was told by a lawyer and a police officer (both friends of mine) is that as long as it is in public spot (like someone being pulled over on the side of the road) you can photograph them. However, you may be asked for your SD card if what you photographed, for example, was an accident that occured, or you otherwise had photographs or videos that would be helpful (in general) to law enforcement, but you wouldn't be arrested or ticketed for doing such photography. I think where it crosses the line is if you use, say, an super telephoto lens to capture a pic through a window of someone being arrested inside a building or house. That I believe goes into invasion of privacy (and thus either would be illegal and/or just wrong), but on public streets, sidewalks, etc, you can photograph police, etc. What I think some people forget you CANNOT photograph, are certain government buildings, power stations (such as power plants or distribution sites), and a handful of other places.

It is an Urban Legend that photography is somehow covered in the Patriot Act. Unfortunately, even some law enforcement officials believe this.

For example, some think the government has the authority to bar photographs of "CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE", which include power plants and the like. I assume this is what the @sirhawkeye64 is referring to. But what does the Patriot Act say about critical infrastructure? Just this:

"The Director of the United States Secret Service shall take appropriate actions to develop a national net- work of electronic crime task forces, based on the New York Electronic Crimes Task Force model, throughout the United States, for the purpose of preventing, detecting, and investigating various forms of electronic crimes, including potential terrorist attacks against critical infra- structure and financial payment systems"

Nothing even remotely related to photography. i can go on with other citations such as "suspicious” activity or “surveillance.”

Your friends were wrong, if they were talking about the USPolice can ask for anything, ncluding your sd card, and your pants, and the time of day. You do not need to voluntarily give them anything until it is subject to subpoena. In general, you can photograph anything you can see from a public space. And while there are building that you cannot legally photograph, there are only a few and you will probably never see any of them in your lifetime.

Yes the police would need a subpoena to get the SD card. I wasn't necessarily implying immediately on-site, but if the situation's bad enough, it doesn't take long to get one. That's why I honestly just don't bother photographing police or incidents relating to police (never really needed to either and luckily I do this as a haobby and stick to things like portraits and landscapes).

As for military installations, I think that's really one area that's a little grey, but I'm going to lean more towrads the NOT allowed list. And it makes sense, because the government doesn't know what you're going to do with that photograph. You may hang it on your wall, or turn it over to some foreign government agency. I think there probably local laws too that can further limit what can and cannot be photographed. Laws are vague on purpose, so that in the event an issue arises, the law can be interpreted by the courts, and is not specific to a T, thus possibly ruling out variations.

You can certainly take pictures of military bases from public areas. And usually you can take pictures from on them as well, if you're allowed to be there. Seriously, the number of things you legally can't take pictures of in the US is so much smaller than everybody thinks...

They key phrase is "if you're allowed to be there" which in most cases is usually either a person of the military, or someone hired by the government (ie. a hired photographer, or maintenance person, etc) that has legal access to the military installation. As far as shooting from a public location, I'm still thinking that that may not be entirely legal, but it would probably require a little research to find out for sure. I've always gone with the idea that military bases and equipment were off limits for photographing by the public (even from a public location/vantage point) unless you were hired by the US government to do so, and have the proper documentation to prove so.

I've done the research. And I've also been to air shows on or near military bases. I've toured MacDill AFB in Florida. I've been on Fort Benning.I've been on active parts of the Pearl Harbor. I've taken pictures of military equipment all over the east coast of the US. I think it's interesting. They don't care. There are "No Photography' signs posted in some areas and you're better off to honor those, but most people don't.

Google Streetview is loaded with pictures of military buildings and gear

Seriously, all this concern is borne out of a lack of information. There are a handful (seriously, a handful) of installations where it is illegal to take pictures of locations and equipment. Most people will never even step foot near those.

Sources? And are you a former military person? Just wondering because I'm thinking that former military personnel may have additional privileges through association that the normal US citizen does not, Again, I wasn't implying that EVERY military installation is off limits, but I think it's generally agreed upon (whether illegal or not) that military installations are generally not good subject matter to photograph, unless it's something like an air show that the public has access to.

JohnBaker thanks for your service to our country. You're right, of course, but the distinction between knowing classified information and taking pictures of visible buildings, facilities, and equipment is important. You can go to the gate at MacDill and take pictures of the guard shack. That's legal. You can stand on a ladder on public property and take pictures over the wall. That's legal.Military facilities are photographed constantly by non-government entities. Take a look at Google maps and google streetview.Take 280 southeast out of Columbus, GA. You're on Ft Benning. You can video, photograph all you want. The cutter USCGC Dilligence is stationed in Wilmington, NC and is usually tied up there. You can tour it and take pictures of it and active duty military coming and going. It's legal.There is an issue where what people think should be law isn't the law.

Read paragraph (a) very carefully. it is very clearly listed as an exception. It is very unlikely that any of us live near or visit installations that have been so designated. The relevant part reads:

"Whenever, in the interests of national defense, the President defines certain vital military and naval installations or equipment as requiring protection against the general dissemination of information relative thereto"

If/when I come across a facility so designated I will certainly avoid breaking the law.

18 U.S. Code § 795 is notably silent on the issue of public spaces. This is no small detail. The statute is pointedly vague on that point. Without posting this code in relevant public space it would be quite difficult to obtain a conviction. By the same token, posting this code in a public space would require the military taking a measure of control over that public space which makes that space not so public anymore.

Not to put too fine a point on this, but just about everyone who has been anywhere near a military base has a photograph somewhere they've taken that could conceivably fit under a broad interpretation of § 795. That broad interpretation suggests that the police could arrest anyone with a camera and seize any camera anywhere near a military base, at any time The courts take a dim view of such broad interpretations that ensnares nearly everyone in the United States. If you've been anywhere under the flight path of a Blue Angels air show, if you've ever been to a military museum, if ever took a photo that had any portion of a military base or harbor in the background (say, for example, anywhere in San Diego County), if you ever attended a boot camp graduation, if you've ever been on the highway when a military convoy drove by, etc. etc.

I have hundreds of such pictures and I'm confidant I've broken no law.

Wow. I am flummoxed. It would appear that it is actually illegal to take a picture of anything even remotely related to the US Military. In fact, it would appear as if just about every military photograph of US forces, equipment, or installations that any of us has even seen was taken illegally. I stand humbly corrected, although that executive order would be good fodder for a legal discussion (and this isn't the place for that...)

And keep reading...All military, naval, or air-force aircraft, weapons, ammunition, vehicles, ships, vessels, instruments, engines, manufacturing machinery, tools, devices, or any other equipment whatsoever, in the possession of the Army, Navy, or Air Force or in the course of experimentation, development, manufacture, or delivery for the Army, Navy, or Air Force

The military equipment must be designated, classified, or marked as "top secret" etc.

Humvees and pencils don't qualify. They're not marked "top secret" or "restricted". (Restricted usually refers to areas anyway, not equipment, as in "This area is marked RESTRICTED.") Not all military areas are marked restricted. Not all equipment is designated "secret". Not all paperwork is classified as "confidential".

There is no problem in taking pictures of police officers on duty as long as its on a public place, ok, then police officers will have no problem in identifying those that take pictures of them. "Just in case". People shouldn't have problems with that either.

Have you ever been identified by a cop for taking pictures of them? Well they have the right to know who does it. It's not that something bad is going to happen, but they do not know the use that is going to be done with those images.

JohnBaker where does it say that specifically on the constitution? A Cop has the right to know what is going on around them, especially on some situations and moments nobody should be taking pictures of them. I don't think there is any problem in telling a cop who you are and what your doing if they ask you. No one is going to jail for that. I'm not saying you can't take pictures of them.

JohnBaker, why do you look at it as harassment? I'm not talking about any specific police officer that has some type of problem. I'm talking about common sense. Not going against the law. The law has it's limit ofcourse, but I'm talking about specific situations where a police officer has the need to know who took or is taking pictures. This is not an everyday situation. It's not the first time I see pictures on internet and people asking to identify and even where a police officer lives.

The exception clause at the bottom is exactly what police use to arrest people, as shown in numerous youtube videos. The cop turns to the filmer and says "you are hindering my investigation", and the situation escalates, with the cops intent on performing an arrest.

I've seen where sovereign citizens are provoking and harassing cops, no issue there, as those peoples are public dangers and nuissances, but then I see even reporters getting harassed.

Sovereign citizens are criminals, plain and simple. People used to share their videos showing them at traffic stops exercising civil disobedience, or walking out of courts and disputing the jurisdictions before knowing that they are criminals and the videos are usually cut short, like later there are convictions. The best ones are where they don't want to produce their licenses and identifications while driving, then get surprised at the ensuing extraction and arrest. Or when they act like fake lawyers. In central Europe, they are called "Reichsbuerger" because they claim Hitler never capitulated and there was no war-end treaty. They are already responsible for dead cops and other shooting incidents. There are already raids taking place throughout central Europe targeting them and their weapons.

The tie-in here is that many sovereign citizens provoke cops with cameras. Cop Watch is a big offender and they are sovereign citizens, not overseers.

Dear me. That doesn't sound good but now I think I understand why I saw a husband and wife standing in aisle of my local grocery store on a Sunday afternoon with giant pistols on their belts. It was fairly odd.

but if anyone reading my post considered the push toward fascism from the govt by politicians \corporations and the media to be a less desirable direction for the evolving American political experience woulf be wise not to knee-jerk dismiss the grievances they claim

we are coerced into thinking a certain way ... thru psychology citizen peer pressure of easily coopted minds and a media shaped discription of what patriotism is every worthy political cause from the American Revolution to the Magna Carta had at its core people of conscience

dismissing them thoughtlessly at the beck and call of a questionable media or its thought victims is ..... well.....questionable

one thing the sovereign citizen movement recognises is the concerted effort to chaNGE THE RIGHTS OF AMERICANS TO BEAR ARMS waged by the CIA the media and the government ..... Operation Gladio in Europe especially Italy taught me something about the true causes of terrorism and mass murder of citizens

someday the American public will learn the truth about terrorism just as the Italians have,... following the candid confessions of the Italian govt in recent rears about terrorist acts in Italy in the 1970s and 1980s blamed on the left but committed by the right ... truth is the most powerful thing we possess ...

Sir, how do you reconcile that with a bunch of people trying to cite maritime law and third and fourth person narratives as a defense to what seemingly, is a simple aversion to registering a car or having a drivers license? This is not a movement, this is an attempt to get out of civic responsibility. The defense has never worked in a court of law.

You have your right to keep your guns. In 1981 there were 20 states that did not allow open carry of a firearm. Today there are only 3. Nobody is coming to take your guns.

LEON i dont belong to to any political groups , but as an American I'm acutely aware of the slide to the pit of fascism occurring

my perspective is that these that "sovereign " claiming citizens see something too and struggle to come to grips with a proper response to a very real american political change, personally i believe the government is involved in all sorts of skullduggery and psyops aimed at the disarmament of Americans .

. im not a fan of gun owners or guns personally ... but less a fan of the slide toward fascism in America and its accompanying changes in citizens rights

also, those are state rights and change from 20 to three is a consequence of federal meddling and a widening understanding of the direction of change politically pushed by washingtom ... the change is a response, state by state .to that meddling.

You are speaking in the abstract, I am speaking about actual, documented incidents. Their main cause seems to be traffic fines and squatting on private property and their defense is always an attempt at semantic gymnastics.

In theory it's legal but depending on the specific actions of the photographers it can be considered illegal if the activity is harassing or obstructing. Also note how this is only in federal court. States, counties, and cities, have recently passed laws making the mere act of photographing the police illegal. I'm no saying I agree with those laws but people shouldn't think that this ruling means they won't get in trouble.

Those decisions apply to all jurisdictions, city, state, etc. Cities that choose to continue such practices will be setting themselves up for some major lawsuits. Note that this last case was filed as a result of actions in the city of Philadelphia. Of course, there will be a few bad apples that will continue to ignore the law.

As a Philadelphian, and a political sciences guy, everything Tony said is correct. The police who choose to ignore federal law are generally acting under a typical misguided notion that state and local ordinance somehow manage to supersede federal law. That is not true. Ever.

What people mistake for 'state/local law' overriding federal law is actually just a lack of enforcement at the federal level. Philadelphia decriminalized marijuana, for example, even though it's banned at the federal level. Federal agencies *could* make this a problem, if they chose to do so, but they're not being asked to.

The "gotcha" is really defining what is considered "interfering with police conduct" in a case against the city. *That* can be debated and possibly defined at the state or local level. (It could also go to the federal level to be interpreted based on the Constitution, but that's a hard road to travel.)

Agree with the other responders. There are many instances where cities and states can pass tougher laws than exist at the federal level. (Environmental regulations as an example.) But when it comes to constitutional issues the constitution trumps everything. Any laws at lower levels that contradict a decision made on constitutional grounds in a federal court are invalidaded by the court's decision. The only way local laws could be legally enforced is if the Supreme Court overturns one of these appellate decisions. That's not a likely scenario.

In these cases, the federal circuit courts interpret the US Constitution, which overrides all state and local laws, not just federal laws. Of course, the ruling each federal circuit court only applies to its territory (the 3rd circuit here only covers PA, NJ & DE), but their decisions set a precedence that all other courts respect.

Because of incompetent rulings by lower courts. In this case, the lower court ruled that the photography of police was NOT covered by the first amendment because it wasn't "expressive" enough. The photographer appealed the decision to the Federal level and won.

The Federal court system is divided into 12 regions across the US and they operate more or less autonomously—in other words you can have different results depending on where your case is heard. The different courts have different personalities—the circuit court that includes California is tilted a bit more toward protecting the rights of individuals while court districts in the southern part of the US tilt more toward giving businesses preferential treatment.

I'm not sure why we do it this way, but it's been working pretty well so far.

If the district courts can't agree with each other or if one of the people in the suit doesn't like the decision, the people involved can ask for it to be reviewed in what in the US is called the Supreme Court. Decisions by the Supreme Court are final and can't be overruled.

My question is: If a higher court has already ruled on a specific matter (...many times, it seems, in this particular case...), why isn't that ruling bidding to the lower circuit court, once a "same case" is is brought before them?...Why going up the ladder just to get the same ruling, one that is not prone to change since it impacts on constitutional matters?

EDIT:...sorry...between the time of writing this and posting it, I see my question has already been addressed. Thank you.

Our Constitution is vague, purposefully so, one might even suggest. The Federal Courts and Supreme Court exist to interpret our vague Constitution. The problem they typically face is setting precedent, where a vague outline for citizens' rights is made more clear (e.g., it was only 10 years ago that our 2nd Amendment -- the right to bear and keep arms -- was defined to at least allow the possession of handguns for home protection). However, once precedent is set, courts are typically unwilling to go back on it, much like any other public good is difficult to rescind once granted.

These cases go to the courts because the circumstances might be different than a previous case. Most of the time, precedent is upheld, but there are times when another definition is introduced. Occasionally, cases attempt to exploit those new intricacies, which occasionally lead to a new interpretation of the Constitution.

To ignore legal precedent, the lower court judge just has to say the current case is sufficiently different from a previous rulings that it doesn't apply. So if a lower court judge is incompetent or biased towards law enforcement, it is easy for them to ignore legal precedent. They need to find *something* (valid or not) that makes this case special. In this case, the lower court judge said that the photography wasn't covered because it wasn't "expressive enough" to be covered by the first amendment. That's b.s., but that was the reasoning. Thankfully the photographer had the resources to appeal to the Federal level, who corrected this error.

To add to what Brightside said, the appellate courts only have juristiction over the states in their region. Which is why you can see the same issue going through several different court systems. An appellate court can use a decision from another court to bolster their decision, but they don't have to, and they still have to decide it for themselves. If there's a conflict between appellate courts, some decide one way and one or more a different way, that is when an issue usually has a chance to advance to the Supreme Court, which makes a final decision that is binding on all states.

DP Review is an American website, located within the US therefore it is logical that they would post photo-related stories about the US. It raises an interesting question that perhaps could be responded to by readers: "what are the laws concerning the public's right to photograph police and/or paramilitary activity in other countries?"

Though it was ripped from the UK and flung across the pond to Seattle, this site remains very British both in attitude and content choice. So when they report US news you can be sure that it's important.

The Britishness is in their class-based weltanschauung, the conviction that what they say is law just because they said it. In their caste system, they are camera aristocracy, we are peasants who are not entitled to question them. It's also evident in their fear of using outside sources to test their beliefs. For instance, in articles and reviews they never cite sources or seek out comments from actual engineers or scientists, presumably because they are afraid that real experts will refute their conclusions . A more charitable interpretation is that they suffer from illusory superiority which is a failing we all suffer from.

First, they may not be doing thier job right. Second, who is deciding what is correct and what is not? Third, there is the legitimate concern of the possibility of interference, both with teh officers doing thier job as well as photographers positioning themselves into harm's way, where the officers then need to provide resources to protect them, and possibly adding to potention litigation. Fourth, there is instance after instance after instance that proves that photos and video can lie.

This was great news. By and large, the vast majority of law enforcement personnel are doing their best at a difficult job. But, the nature of the job also draws some bad apples. Glad to see yet another circuit court uphold our right to record (as long as we are not interfering).

The Panasonic FZ1000 II is a worthy successor to the company's first large-sensor, long-zoom bridge camera, and a value-conscious rival to the popular Sony RX10-series. It's just as fast as its predecessor but produces nicer JPEGs, has significantly improved controls and interface, and more.

Latest buying guides

What’s the best camera costing over $2000? The best high-end camera costing more than $2000 should have plenty of resolution, exceptional build quality, good 4K video capture and top-notch autofocus for advanced and professional users. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing over $2000 and recommended the best.

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that might be a bit older but still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

What's the best camera for shooting sports and action? Fast continuous shooting, reliable autofocus and great battery life are just three of the most important factors. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting sports and action, and recommended the best.

Believe it or not, there are still people that like to print out their photos and create photo books to send gifts to family members. We looked at five popular photo printing services and have chosen the best.

If you are looking for a fun photography project to try, Mathieu Stern has a neat idea for you. Using the 'anthotype' process, Stern used only beetroot juice, paper, a photo positive and a bit of time in the sun to create a phytotype photograph.

Cameras' video capabilities just keep getting better. But what if you're not interested in video? Here's why you probably won't get stills-only versions of most cameras, and why they wouldn't be cheaper, if you did.

DxO has announced Nik Collection 3. The popular plugin suite includes a new Perspective Efex plugin for fixing distortion and adjusting perspective, bringing the total number of plugins in the suite to eight.

The term 'computational photography' gets used a lot these days, but what exactly is it? In this article, the first in a three-part series, guest contributor Vasily Zubarev dives deep to show us how photography will work in the future.